Banning abortion is a violation of bodily autonomy like how banning child abuse is a violation of property rights.
My property, my choice!
🇳🇱
I am one who feels bodily autonomy is sacred. My argument is usually that both the fetus and parent have bodily autonomy that is in conflict when it comes to abortion. Therefore any law surrounding it must do its best to respect the bodily autonomy of both.
inb4: People usually counter with talk about being forced to donate a liver to someone. But the difference is a fetus only needs you metaphorical liver because you put the fetus in that position in the first place.
I am not against abortion, but I do think it needs to be relatively restrictive in when and how it is permitted (first trimester only)
@Phileosopher @realcaseyrollins
I dont think the question even makes sense to ask... Or at least it is a meaningless question... What you are realling asking is "What do you think the definition of "rights" should be".
But let me attempt to answer. Rights are, effectively, the things we agree are morally proper to live by as ethical rules. So really we are asking is... is it possible to pick ah moral code that is objective and universal and not arbitrary or ah social construct...and I'd say yes, ethics are an objective logical thing that exists regardless of if those ethics are codified (granted) or not.
My argument is usually that both the fetus and parent have bodily autonomy that is in conflict when it comes to abortion.
That’s how I view it as well (and this applies outside the womb as well); but if one’s autonomous choice would be to kill the other, I’d lean on the side of the person who would otherwise be killed.
@realcaseyrollins It is more complicated than that... I think one needs to let the woman have the right to abort, but only if she does so in a way that makes every attempt at minimizing the moral offenses against the fetus... limiting it to ah point in time before the fetus has brain cells seems like ah fair compromise.
@freemo I don’t find that compromise fair because it still allows babies to be killed before their brain cells form.
Yea, so? They dont have any self, it is morally equivalent to broccoli at that point.
Plus you cant completely disregard the autonomy otf the woman, sot there must be some compromise.
@freemo “Autonomy” isn’t a right. I’m a big freedom guy tho so I do wanna give people as much autonomy as is reasonable, but letting people kill other people without just cause is not reasonable.
Granted, the #prolife position doesn’t really make sense unless you believe in the supernatural/the spirit world. In most religions (I am a #Christian), humans who are alive are people. So, a fetus “has self” (or personhood) so long as it is still alive.
hype not ah legal right, but it should be. It certainly is objectively ah moral right IMO.
@freemo Hmm are you conceptualizing “bodily autonomy” the same way many categorize “personal freedom” or “pursuit of happiness”? If so I’m on board with that, but “bodily autonomy” is way too broad for me to support.
Stopping serial killers violates their bodily autonomy too.
@realcaseyrollins No stopping serial killers would not be a bodily autonomy issues.
Bodily ahutonomy means you have absolute right to put whatever you want in your body, modify your body, and have complete autonomy for what goes, in or out of your body, this would also include the right to decide if and when you die when possible.
Bodily autoonomy also dictates that you can not violate someone elses bodily autonomy.
So under this definition, no a serial killer isnt being denied bodily autonomy, the other way around, they are denying others of their bodily autonomy and thus should have consequences.
Bodily autonomy doesnt mean you can do anything you want.
@freemo So then bodily autonomy doesn’t apply to abortion, because at that point you’re talking about doing something to someone else’s body, and excluding the case of rape (which makes for the vast minority of abortions btw) that situation does not involve a lack of consent regarding what goes into or out of the body since the decision to have sex had been made.
@realcaseyrollins yup exactly. Except therenis no brain or neurons in the first 2 months, therefore bodily autonomy hasnt kicked in yet. You need a brain to have autonomy.
How can a person have desires for what they want dont with their body without a brain. Desire and suffering requires a brain. We can infer once it has a brain that if we coukd communicate with it that it woukdnt want to die. Without a brain it has no wants.
Same reason its fine to torture a piece of brocoli, not fine to torture a dog.
Also did you know that plants scream?
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/12/02/507590.full.pdf
"Scientists already know that plants communicate in a variety of ways when they are stressed. They might change physically (by wilting or changing leaf color), become bitter to the taste (to deter herbivores), or emit smells (volatile organic compounds) to tell other members of the family that they are under attack, for example by insects."
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-groundbreaking-research-tel-aviv-u-team-records-plants-talking-for-first-time/
@freemo @realcaseyrollins
Do you believe human rights are granted (and I don't want to fiddle with timing because that's the argument), or are they inherent?